Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3514
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Kulwinder Kaur And Others - Appellant
Versus
Satpal Singh And Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 706 of 2012, 1598 of 2012; Cross Objections No. 66 of 2012
Decided On : 05-10-2018
Rakesh Gupta, Adv., A.D.S. Sukhija, Adv., V. Ramswaroop, Adv., Gopal Mittal, Adv.
In cases of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors, and apportionment of compensation between them is not permissible.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166 - [166] - The judgment discusses the liability of the insurance company, the driver, and the owner of the tractor-trolley in a motor vehicle accident. It also addresses the apportionment of compensation and the legal principles related to composite negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of Tarlochan Singh. The judgment addresses the liability of the insurance company, the driver, and the owner of the tractor-trolley, as well as the apportionment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck and the tractor driver. It upheld the apportionment of liability and dismissed the appeal by the insurance company.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company, driver, and owner of the tractor-trolley, as well as the apportionment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation. It also emphasized that apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors is not permissible in cases of composite negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and the apportionment of compensation amongst claimants was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - Fao no. 706 of 2012, XOBJC-66-CII of 2012 and FAO No. 1598 of 2012 are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by a common decision as all of them arise out of the same impugned award dated 26.11.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Patiala.
2. Fao No. 1598 of 2012 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging its liability to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation assessed by the learned tribunal is also under challenge.
3. Xobjc-66-Cii of 2012 have been filed by the legal heirs of respondent no.9-Jagir Singh, who was the owner of the tractor bearing registration no. HRX-4582.
4. Fao No. 706 of 2012, has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to
them vide impugned award dated 26.11.2011, passed by the learned tribunal, Patiala.
5. As per averments in the claim petition filed by the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, deceased Tarlochan Singh was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Police and was posted at Police Station Mullepur. He was proceeding for his duty at Police Station Mullepur on 30.07.2009, at about 11.30.a.m., on his motorcycle. Gurmajor Singh, younger brother of the deceased was following him on his motorcycle bearing registration no. PB-11-Z-0679. When the deceased reached near Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh, near Sirhind bye-pass, Rajpura, a truck bearing registration no. HP-12-A-5820, came from the opposite side and hit against the motorcycle of Tarlochan Singh. As a result thereof, Tarlochan Singh fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries. At the same time, another tractor-trolley bearing registration no. HRX-4582 loaded with sand ran over Tarlochan Singh, due to which he received multiple injuries. Tarlochan Singh was taken to A.P.Jain, Hospital, Rajpura, but due to seriousness of his condition, the doctors advised to shift Tarlochan Singh to Gian Sagar Hospital. Tarlochan Singh however succumbed to the injuries received by him. FIR No. 198 dated 30.07.2009, under Sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station City Rajpura, in this respect.
6. Learned tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 33,64,880/- to the claimants. Income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 19,910/- per month. Deduction of 1/ 4th was effected and a multiplier of 14 was applied. An amount of Rs. 5000/- was awarded towards loss of estate. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 5000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses. It was held that the insurance company would be liable to pay 80% of the compensation and 20% thereof shall be paid by the driver and owner of the tractor-trolley.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argues that the learned tribunal has wrongly assessed the liability of the present appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of 80% and only 20% has been ordered to be the liability of the driver and the owner of the tractor in question. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was run over by the tractor trolley driven by respondent no.5- Gurjit Singh. Therefore, it is clear that death of Tarlochan Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by respondent no.5-Gurjit Singh. It is contended that though it is the owner and driver of the tractor, who should be held liable to pay the entire compensation, however, liability of the insurance company should not be more than 50% in any case. It is further contended that the driver of the offending truck produced two driving licenses. As per verification report, the license issued from Licensing Authority, Mathura was not valid. Therefore, the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the truck in question.
8. In respect to the quantum of compensation
